Does RIM's "Huge Loss" Signal Wider Handset Market Deterioration?

zacharye writes "RIM was expected to deliver a nightmarish, -30% year-on-year revenue decline into the May quarter — the company issued its latest profit warning just four weeks ago. Yet it ended up missing the lowered consensus estimate by 10%, generating just $2.8 billion in sales. The reasons for RIM's decline are well-known and will be rehashed again over the next 24 hours. But the size of the F1Q13 sales miss raises another question: apart from Apple and Samsung, is the handset industry drifting into serious trouble?"

Comments

No

[ghn]

Look at apple's profits.

And please stop the sensationalist question mark titles.

Re:No

[Z00L00K]

The handset industry is facing the same problem as the PC industry did during the 80's and we will end up with 2 or 3 large players.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines and you will understand the reason for the question mark.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

We only have a handful of large players in the handset industry right now.

If it's like the PC industry, we'll get exactly what we want for dirt cheap from any one of a 1,000 different manufacturers operating on razor-thin margins.

That'd be nice, and I'd like to see Google take their Motorola Mobility purchase and kick off that trend right now.

Re:No

[Microlith]

Only with the added burden of no software flexibility and way more DRM + lock down.

Re:No

[gl4ss]

The handset industry is facing the same problem as the PC industry did during the 80's and we will end up with 2 or 3 large players.

oh you mean just like happened to handset industry in 1996? and again in 2000? and again in 2004? and 2008?

hint: handset industry is in perpetual trouble, always been, always will. the bigger players manage with their momentum over the bad times, like motorola & samsung have done(even moto ended up getting chopped up, since last time they had a hit was with the original razrs) and how nokia is doing now after almost a decade of good times. it remains to be seen if blackberry is too big to fail or not in this regard.

the difference to pc industry is obvious though, you can't as easily just buy the parts and throw them together - another difference is IP rights, which basically bar any new entrees to the market(only small niche players are tolerated without getting sued by the big 5) even though anyone can buy the devices from the subcontracting factories.

and rims huge loss just signals rims situation - they hit their market peak. their actual problem was that they were never a global player and another problem is that they kept just hiring more and more people during their good times - that's another thing these companies do, they hoard engineers on the good times even if they don't have anything worhwhile for them to do - so expenses balloon when their profits balloon and then if they have a period of not having a hit phone in the stores it's doomsday instantly.

also - bb only ever had a lead in very few countries. they were never a truly global contender - however they did have growth until now.

Re:No

[wisty]

Also, RIM's loss was mostly from writing down old stock. It's a paper loss, making up for paper profits which never really happened.

Their position isn't good, but it's not as horrible as the half billion loss indicates.

Re:No

[gnasher719]

Look at apple's profits.

The question asked was: "Apart from Apple and Samsung, is the handset market in trouble?" It seems that Apple makes huge profits, Samsung makes good profits, and the rest doesn't. If you say that total handset profit = profits of handset makers making profits, minus losses of handset makers making losses, then Apple and Samsung make over 100% of the total profit.

Now Samsung doesn't do anything that others couldn't do, so this seems to be just a matter of better execution and marketing.

Re:No

[hairyfeet]

Actually the reason RIM is gonna end up toast is the same reason we have seen tons of other companies go from being the big cheese to just another small fry, hell its the same reason we are seeing MSFT throw the Hail Mary of the century with Win 8 in Oct, and that is they didn't see the disruptive shift in the market coming and instead of innovating they sat on their laurels.

There is no reason that Blackberry couldn't have branched out, they could have had sleek elite lines like Apple and entry lines like Android, but like many corps they got fat and sat on their asses and the world passed them by. Seriously how many times have we seen this play out? RIM, Palm, the above mentioned MSFT, Nokia, these corps become the king of their respective hills and instead of staying hungry and growing they plop down and just count the money...right up to the point the Mac truck that is the changing tech scene runs their asses smooth over.

if you want to sit on your ass? tech is NOT the market you want to be in. just look at how much things have changed in the last decade, the end of the MHZ wars and the rise of multicores in the PC market, the death of the dumbphone for smartphones, netbooks and tablets appearing out of thin air, if you try to set on your ass in the tech world somebody will come along and kick you right in the ass, simple as that. RIM had a sweet thing going with business users but instead of doing the smart thing which would have been branching out into new markets, developing new exciting designs, and trying to stay ahead of the curve, they basically pulled a Palm and just rehashed what they had. Bad move RIM and now it looks like you're toast.

Re:No

[Anne Thwacks]

How would short sellers profit from that?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't sell handsets, Apple sells a nice user experience and an integrated app store/iTunes/walled garden, etc, where users spend money regularly.

If Apple sold handsets they would not make the 'free OS upgrade' available on older handsets, as that would harm the handset revenue, so obviously they are interested in getting regular revenue from the whole system and not just from flogging the handset, which is only one part of that revenue system.
That they are introducing new features that aren't supported in the older handsets also add an impetus to users to upgrade their handset when the time comes, although they will still keep buying in the meantime.

Re:No

[gtall]

I don't know about the rest, but I do not think MS didn't attempt to branch out. They may have no class to their software or devices, which doomed their attempts, but they were and still are trying.

Re:No

[Sponge Bath]

seeing MSFT throw the Hail Mary... they sat on their laurels.

For some strange reason, there were no chairs left.

Re:No

[h4rr4r]

Actually it does. Samsung fabs AMOLED and IPS displays that few others could produce. Samsung makes not only it's own displays but also those that go into apple devices and probably more than half of all handsets. I believe LG and Sharp are their only competition.

Re:No

[tepples]

no software flexibility and way more DRM + lock down

That's true of iOS, but how is it true of applications on Android?

Re:No

[ceoyoyo]

"Apple doesn't sell handsets, Apple sells a nice user experience and an integrated app store/iTunes/walled garden, etc, where users spend money regularly."

Funny, I can go into an Apple store, or onto their website, and buy a handset. Looks like you're wrong.

Apple makes the lion's share of their iPhone-related profit from... selling iPhones. They make updates free because they've figured out that if you don't screw over your existing customers, they're likely to STAY your customers.

Re:No

[west]

I understand the need to weave a narrative where the winners all deserved their success and the losers all deserved their failures, but reality is rather more nuanced. (The need for winners to be good guys and losers to be lazy seems a strongly American phenomenon.)

(1) Almost all major tech companies *do* try lots of different products outside of their core competencies. Almost all fail. As long as you don't notice Microsoft's hundreds of failed innovative product attempts, it's easy to claim their sitting on their backside. Also remember that outside of one's area of specialization, the odds of success are pretty much the same as anyone's: 1 in 1,000.
(2) RIM was busy serving their customers, and more to the point, probably serve their customers better than any competitor. They're having their lunch eaten because their market is ceasing to exist, being replaced by inferior (for their market's very particular uses) technology. Being able to play Angry Birds is NOT an improvement to businesses or governments productivity. Unfortunately for RIM, it turns out company productivity is not the final metric for phone selection...

The point is that while the tech winners inevitably are very hard working, most of the losers are as well, but failed to have the butterfly on the other side of the globe flap their wings the right way. It's amazing how these narratives are always clear only with hindsight.

Company A wasted their money and reputation n projects outside their core competencies and deserved to fail! Company A failed to anticipate the changing markets and deserved to fail!

Very, very few companies ever get more than one big success, and that's one more success than you or I have ever had. No need to disrespect them because they failed to get a second. (Or in MS's case, a fourth (DOS, Windows, Office)).

Re:No

[l0ungeb0y]

Except that it's NOT A THING like the PC Industry. Handhelds are also a fashion accessory, and while you might be content to tote around a duck-taped "hackheld" while wearing ratty shoes and reeking of BO, the vast majority of the consumer market wants a sleek, fashionable device that they look good with. And Apple delivers sexy products like no one else.

Cheap knock-off units by no-brand manufacturers don't have a chance to survive in an environment that is more about image and fashion than actual tech.

Re:No

[UnknownSoldier]

Uh,
Xbox / Xbox 360 / Xbox 720
Zune
Kinnect
WinCE and early mobile phones
Win7 phones
MS Keyboard & Mouse
MS Store
Their big R&D lab.

> They may have no class to their software or devices,
That's one the major problems - they don't understand sexy marketing the way Apple does.

Re:No

[slashmydots]

What loss? The article states they'll have a revenue decline of -30%. That's a 30% increase in revenue! How great for them lol.

Re:No

[swb]

MSFT's big problem isn't a lack of trying, it's that every innovative idea they have gets run past a bunch of guys whose bonus depends on Windows and Office sales numbers. If these guys or their soothsayers see something in these products that may risk these profits then these products get stripped of whatever that feature or component is or it gets dumbed down to worthlessness.

MSFT should have given a couple of billion dollars to the phone people five years ago and set them up in an office in Orange County, CA or NYC with standalone everything (phones, email, management, etc) so there was no tie back to MSFT and no way for greedy execs at home to squelch new thinking.

They could have come up with something remarkable, instead we just get the same bullshit, overseen by the same guys guarding their asses.

Re:No

[Crosshair84]

It happened to Standard Oil after Rockefeller retired in 1896 (Competition destroyed Standard oil, not the Anti-consumer Antitrust suit.) and it will happen to any company in a free market, the big boys will get eaten by the smaller competitors unless they stay on top of their game. Rockefeller's co-workers readily admitted that he was the key to Standard oils's sucess, 'Rockefeller always sees a little further than the rest of us -- and then he sees around the corner.' Rockefeller was the Bill Gates of his day and once he was gone Standard Oil got Balmer type management.

Of course once you get the government in you have what we have now in banking and other industries. Gigantic corporations who are protected from competition by regulations and bailouts.

Re:No

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...I wasn't talking about MSFT friends, I was talking about RIM. if you want me to talk about MSFT fine, Jobs hit it on the head years ago, they have NO taste at all, none. they should have hired some world class designers and then left them alone to cook up truly great products but instead just put out fugly products or worse, in the case of Zune and Kin bought someone else's fugly products and stuck a MSFT label on them.

The problem with MSFT is Ballmer is a truly piss poor CEO who refuses to listen to anybody else and who has run off all the old guard that knew WTF they were doing like Ozzie and Allchin. What he SHOULD have done is actually gone back in the companies history and used their previous strategy, which is having a workstation OS for businesses while having a more bling bling flashy OS for the consumers. Then they should have spun off the mobile division so they wouldn't be forced to constantly try to tie into the legacy Windows and office brands and instead been able to focus solely on a "it just works" mantra of making all of their properties, Windows, X360, mobile, Skype, have it all work as seamless as possible.

So I wasn't talking about MSFT, who are suffering from a shitty CEO who has a serious case of the "me too!" copycat syndrome, but of RIM who never bothered to really try to expand beyond their core business user market and are now paying the price.

Re:No

[UnknownSoldier]

> So I wasn't talking about MSFT, who are suffering from a shitty CEO who has a serious case of the "me too!" copycat syndrome, but of RIM who never bothered to really try to expand beyond their core business user market and are now paying the price.

I would say that's a pretty fair assessment / summary.

Re:No

[cthulhu11]

RIM contacted me about two weeks ago on Linkedin about a sysadmin-ish job. I wrote back asking if they'd be willing to offer an outrageous compensation package to lure me away from my stable job of 17 years to circle the drain with them. They didn't respond.

Obvious?

[SultanCemil]

I'll venture a guess that in 10 years, RIM's fall from grace will probably be a great case study in business schools around the world.

How a successful company managed, through horrible fore-sight, atrocious product management and lousy business management, to squander an insurmountable lead in the enterprise market is amazing.

On to the story at hand: there is no doubt that the wider handset market is in all kinds of trouble. Apple clearly makes most of the profit, and Samsung picks off what is left. What does this leave the other players? Nothing. Clearly there is no competition in the iOS market, and Samsung has a huge lead (and massive fab capabilities). Unless one of the other players steps up and makes a handset that, you know, you'd actually want, then they're dead.

End of story - this isn't that complex. Make a product people want. The competition has showed you the way....

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's more simple. new technology. vhs didn't last...rim is vhs

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't disrupt a market by being a follower. Being a follower is always a volume business, you are just there to run a numbers game.

In apple's case they re-wrote the rulebook and turned the first question abotu every product into "But is it better than apple's offering". Once a single player is in that position t becomes very hard to unseat them by simply copying. You need to change the rules again to win that game.

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia will be an even greater case study.

Re:Obvious?

[jrumney]

On to the story at hand: there is no doubt that the wider handset market is in all kinds of trouble. Apple clearly makes most of the profit, and Samsung picks off what is left. What does this leave the other players? Nothing.

From observing a number of industries over the years, I've come to the conclusion that mature markets seem to gravitate towards 3 major players (usually the third one is far behind the first two, sometimes there is one clear leader and two far behind it), and a bunch of also-rans that mostly churn away from startup to bankrupcy in the race to join the boom market, with a few niche players or well funded branches of bigger companies managing to stay around long term without being particularly successful. Occasionally one of these also-rans will move up the ranks, which signals the death of the third placeholder, and possibly a major shift in that industry with the possiblity of all three top players quickly fading away due to entrenched ideas that prevent them adapting to the shift quickly (eg Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola -> Nokia, Blackberry, Apple -> Apple, Samsung, HTC).

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what can be done about this either. Brand name awareness seems to be the key idea here, rather than quality. HTC managed to produce competitive, if not superior handsets this year in comparison to Samsung, which still cleaned up anyway thanks to its own brand awareness.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that new cell phones lose their luster as preening status symbols and toys and just become as commoditized as most PCs have become today.

Re:Obvious?

[cheesybagel]

They would probably gravitate towards a monopoly if it wasn't for anti-trust laws.

Re:Obvious?

[phantomfive]

Right now Rim has $10billion USD in assets. $2billion of it is money in the bank. Any company that manages that much profit is in no way a failure. There is nowhere in the rules that says your company has to last forever.

Of course, if they take on huge amounts of debt in a hopeless attempt to 'turn the company around,' then that will count as failure. But up to now they've been a highly successful company.

Re:Obvious?

[quadrox]

Yeah what really gets me is that they had a headstart with their maemo tablets long before the iphone came out. These were "only" lacking the phone component, but were arguable intended to fill the same "niche" as the iphone, and yet they never really put any effort into making them really good. They could have been where apple is now, but instead we get more Microsoft crap. Way to go Nokia.

Re:Obvious?

[jimicus]

I think RIM's lead worked against them - it made them complacent. By the time they realised they couldn't afford to be complacent, the rest of the world had noticed it some years earlier.

Let's look at a rough timeline:

  - RIM release the first Blackberry along with BES.
  - Microsoft think "What a good idea". They integrate some of the more basic features of BES into Exchange under the name of ActiveSync, and improve it considerably as the years go by. Why does Microsoft do this? Simple, it's a popular feature and they can use it to persuade companies to upgrade their existing Exchange infrastructure rather than buy BES. All they need to do is find some handset vendors to license the client-side to.
  - RIM doubtless looks into this, concludes that ActiveSync is nothing like as sophisticated as BES (it isn't), and that nobody else has released a handset that does a half-decent job of managing email anyway (they haven't).
  - Apple release the iPhone. It's a swishy piece of kit - far prettier than anything RIM have ever produced, and much more pleasant to use - but ultimately not terribly sophisticated. RIM ignore it.
  - Microsoft release Exchange 2007. ActiveSync is greatly improved. RIM ignore it.
  - HTC release the HTC Dream - one of the first Android handsets. Android's prettier than Blackberry, and a sight easier to use. But RIM ignore it.
  - Apple license ActiveSync and include support in an update to the iPhone OS. RIM ignore it.
  - Google license ActiveSync and include support in Android. Phones that support Android 2.0 or later get Exchange support.
  - RIM buy QNX with a view to rewriting their OS. Corporate acquisitions typically involve months of due diligence before they're announced to the public; it's safe to assume that RIM were looking into this some time before Android 2.0 was released.

So where does this leave RIM? It's Q2 2010, they've obviously decided that long-term, they want a new base for their smartphone OS. At this point they're probably at least three years behind Apple and two years behind Android. Pretty much all they can do is maintain their existing product line while putting together what will be their next major OS upgrade and hope to hell they can keep their heads above water for as long as it takes to get something released. Will they? It's looking doubtful.

Re:Obvious?

[zaphod777]

Samsung picks off what is left? They get more credit than that. But anyway the secret to moving a lot of phones is pretty simple I don't know why they don't do this. Unlock the boot loader out the door give us stock Android and if you have to add your special sauce put it as an add-on app / launcher you can install from a special store. Give us good battery, I don't care if the phone is a little thicker but I want a battery that lasts all day. Extra points for solid construction. Also if I can get a 7" tablet for $199 I should be able to get a unsubsidized phone for that much. I know that the radio adds cost but I figure a screen that is 1/4 the size should make up for that.

Re:Obvious?

[Dynamoo]

RIM must be smarting because it *was* a market disrupter.. it's just that the market continued to evolve. Their problem now is.. how to disrupt the market again? I honestly don't think they can do it without radical and painful surgery to their business model.

My two cents worth.. RIM should dump plans for BB10. The world doesn't want another mobile OS, regardless of how good it might be from a technical POV. RIM should slot itself in with Android or perhaps Windows, but then differentiate itself with its software and services offerings (e.g. BBM, BES etc). If you offered me a truly enterprise-capable Android phone I would rip it out of your hands! Sure, margins will be thinner and the glory days will be behind them.. but they would probably survive, and that gives them time to look at the next way of disrupting the market.

Re:Obvious?

[Tridus]

Funny how the market doesn't agree with you.

In the end sales happen to matter, and WP7 doesn't have them.

Re:Obvious?

[CrackedButter]

What are these mature markets with few players? Not the car industry for one, not the cheese industry, not the toilet paper industry, not the whisky industry. I bet I could name more mature industries with many players than you could with industries with few players. This is beyond the phone, computer, OS industries.

Re:Obvious?

[toruonu]

Seriously? You'd be satisfied with a phone that lasts a full day? I just recently was in supermarket reading e-mail in the checkout queue and a guy was speaking with the cashier about phones and the cashier asked if he's doing something wrong because he bought a smartphone (looked like a HTC or smth) and it lasts at best a full day even if he just calls. The other guy who seemed to be a phone guy or smth said that's normal and that his lasts approximately a day if all goes well, but if he uses it more he has to plug it in and that's normal. All smartphones do that... I just shook my head and kept reading e-mails on my iPhone 4 that I had taken from the charger the previous morning at 8 AM (it was late afternoon when this happened, so ca 30h later) and it still had 76% of charge left. I use the phone quite substantially, I use it for personal hotspot at times, I play games on it and constantly browse web and facebook. I also use Waze for traffic information and that's the only bigger battery drainer due to constant GPS usage. But the phone easy lasts 2-3 days, sometimes 4 days. And it's running latest iOS 5.1.1 and is almost 2 years old (bought 2010 october).

So one of the things I think is THE main failure of Android is the phones have crappy battery and the OS doesn't seem to be optimized for really running conservatively on the battery. And I haven't tweaked the OS in any way really to sustain the phone longer (about 50% of the time I'm on 3G, not wifi). I've only turned off location services for a few things (including notifications as I don't use location fencing right now), but most notifications and location services are still used and that has only a small impact. I've found some third party apps that if left in the background do consume a lot of battery even though they shouldn't (Facebook, Waze, Viber are extreme drainers if they are in background, not while in foreground). So killing those apps after I've finished using them expanded my battery life by a day and that's an issue with the 3rd party app and possibly somewhat also the OS.

Re:Obvious?

[UpnAtom]

When Nokia made them, people weren't stupid enough to want tablets. Especially when they cost $500+.

Re:Obvious?

[Endo13]

But those are all industries much less encumbered by patents. Tech moves fast enough that patents generally don't expire until after they're useless anyway, hence the trend towards only a few big players.

Re:Obvious?

[Karlt1]

You really think "unlocking the boot loader" really matters to anyone but a few geeks?

Re:Obvious?

[zippthorne]

You must be a sales guy.

The number of sales is not necessarily a good proxy for the relative quality of two product, as there may be other factors that are generating the result. In the case of phones, Apple's whole ecosystem of 3rd party apps is a huge factor in phone buying decisions, as is their careful choice to make the phone itself "jewelry" as well as a useful phone.

Those two factors alone have carried the iPhone pretty far, and their momentum will probably carry them for some time even if they make no improvements and other phones leave them in the dust in terms of "quality of the os" for much the same reason that health care is about to get very expensive in the US - when you insulate people from the price, they will tend to pick the "brand" name product, and right now iPhone is the brand, and the other smartphones are "ok too."

When WinMo has the app ecosystem that Apple and Android have and has built up some brand recognition then we can start to think about sales volume as even a remotely useful indictor of os quality. Until then, the only useful indicator is actual user and developer reviews. Especially as gaining a reputation for quality is what they need in order to build the brand recognition and app ecosystem in the first place.

Re:Obvious?

[zippo01]

Agreed. Up till late Blackberry was the go to phone for corporations. Every business exec had a blackberry. But due to poor management and decisions and failure to keep up with larger screens, apps, enjoyable internet surfing, etc they have drastically lost the corp market.I know of a great many large companies and cities that make up huge contracts that have dropped their long time Blackberry phones for the Iphone/Android within the last year. This IMHO is the final nail because they will never switch back. They are just too far behind, and from what I have seen ob BB10, it won't ever catch up...

Re:Obvious?

[hlavac]

It's not a matter of how bad WP7 is, it's who is offering it. Given what Microsoft did in the past, who would let them monopolize and screw up another technology segment? No thank you, no sane person would touch it with a stick!

Re:Obvious?

[Anne Thwacks]

As an HTC Desire owner, I would say HTC are professional foot-shooters. My Desire has such poor volume I cant hear it ringing in my pocket, and cant play music over the speaker, and i have three spare batteries charged up on my desk as I type this.

The new generation has not got SD cards or removable batteries. "Apple dont have removable batteries or SD cards, and Apple is selling like hot cakes, so we will copy them!" I wish to God Apple HAD patented non-removable batteries and no SD card!

I had a BB9000 and the keyboard died. Three times in a row, they gave me the same phone (same BBM ID, Same Bluetooth MAC, same Wifi Mac) and told me it was a new phone.

I will be buying SGIII next month.

If you dont want to go the way of RIM, it is important to find out what people want and make that! And try not to slap your customers in the face with a wet fish!

Re:Obvious?

[Anne Thwacks]

Don't tell them all. I am trying to buy RIM stock on the cheap!

Re:Obvious?

[Jesus_C_of_Nazareth]

Yeah, the rest of his suggestions have broad appeal, but a boot loader? I'm a geek, and so are plenty of people I know, and even for me this is a feature way down on my list. My phone is my phone - I happy running a locked down stock OS that's reliable. My computers are where I get my geek kicks.

Re:Obvious?

[Midnight Thunder]

In many ways RIM is repeating another company's history: Palm. Whoever is in charge needs to avoid making those mistakes, otherwise it simply will be a collection of IP bought by a new bigger player.

Re:Obvious?

[MachineShedFred]

You forgot the part where they spend untold amounts of capital and time on going into a market that they know nothing about, and fail miserably: the PlayBook.

If they would have stuck to what they know (phones) then they might still be relevant. Everyone likes to think that a tablet is just a big phone, without the phone. It's really not.

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The single core 1.2 mhz of my tablet stutter and lag, with the browsing experience nowere comparable of that of the lousy iphone 3gs cpu, while moving about the same pixels.

Re:Obvious?

[Midnight Thunder]

With the right management RIM can be turned around, but it needs someone with a 'vision' of where things need to go.

If you look at Apple's history they ended up in a similar positions, since they had become complacent about the merrits of their operating system, while Windows slowly edged past them. It was only when Steve Jobs came back did things start turning around. The difference between him and many current CEOs is that he was neither a lawyer or an accountant. Too many companies seem to be run by people who seem more interested in their paycheck than trying to take a risk and trying something different.

If you forever focus on the balance book, then the balance book will rule the company and the technology that should be driving it.

Re:Obvious?

[jo42]

Have you ever hear of Nortel? This was another huge company with billions in assets and in the bank - now they no longer exist. If RIM lasts another year I'll be surprised.

Re:Obvious?

[Relayman]

Windows 8 is coming for all the peeps like you who can't stand Apple or Android! It will save your world! It will be here Real Soon Now.

Re:Obvious?

[Relayman]

Apple is in the computer business, not the phone business. I use my iPhone as a phone less than 10% of the time. The rest of the time, I use it as a computer. These companies need to realize that they shouldn't be selling phones, they should be selling computers.

Re:Obvious?

[Hope Thelps]

But those are all industries much less encumbered by patents. Tech moves fast enough that patents generally don't expire until after they're useless anyway, hence the trend towards only a few big players.

But the original claim was about "mature markets" whereas you're suggesting it's something that applies to less mature markets. Cars are "tech" too, but they're more mature tech than mobile phones. One day mobile phones will be old hat too, with few essential patents and with less rapid change - i.e. that's when it'll be a mature market.

Re:Obvious?

[symbolset]

It's not really the locking of the bootloader that's the problem. It's that locking the bootloader expresses a desire for control. Implied is that that control will be abused.

Re:Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your battery must have been blessed because I too have an iPhone 4 and it will only make it for about a day, too.

Re:Obvious?

[gtall]

Apple is not dumbed down, they merely made efficient what was a blob of unconnected crap. If by locked down you mean it won't turn into the cesspool of malware that swirls around MS products and starting to be so for Android, then yes it is locked down. The alternative is to have a phone no one wants because its too easily rooted. Hell, even MS realizes this with their new tablet thingy. Apple is only overpriced to people who only evaluate hardware. MS and Linux have taught you to disrespect software and the investment it takes to write it well and have it work properly with a hardware box.

Re:Obvious?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Apple makes a lot of money selling expensive prestige handsets, just like they made a lot of money selling expensive prestige PC's the actual volume is irrelevant to them

Samsung make a handset with most of the same features and ease of use but it is cheaper

Blackberry was the Microsoft of the market, enterprise focused, with little innovation until they realised they were losing market share

There are the usual other players in the market who have always struggled to make money but still manage to, just like the PC industry, but these are the ones that people actually buy in volume - they never get the headlines but are a steady revenue stream ...

Re:Obvious?

[UpnAtom]

Compared to native code, obviously.

Re:Obvious?

[hackula]

Yes, they most certainly would. I cannot stand libertarians talking about how we need to repeal all business regulation in the US so that we can promote "competition". Destroying competition is just about every business' number 1 priority. Anti trust regulation lets us artificially keep the game going, but make no mistake, businesses have only two things they do with competitors: destroy and merge.

Re:Obvious?

[JasterBobaMereel]

...and all the people who don't want an all singing all dancing toy of a phone for a large amount of money, buy one of the others ... note: this is the majority

Apple make money on phones the same way they make money on Desktop computers, a prestige product for a prestige price, large profit with (relatively) low volume

They are not volume box shifters, and never will be

Re:Obvious?

[UpnAtom]

Apple and Android are both tolerable tho I'm sticking with my N900 for now.

But Windows on my phone? I'd rather run Symbian.

Re:Obvious?

[h4rr4r]

I think he means you can't run software you want if it conflicts with the wishes of Apple or the Carriers. Also iOS is dumbed down in that it will not let you replace built in apps nor make major changes to the look and feel.

MS has never done that and linux has proved that great software does not have to cost a lot. iOS has its advantages but none of them are as strong as you imply.

Re:Obvious?

[__aaltlg1547]

That doesn't hold for clothing, cars, fuel, furniture, tools...

Re:Obvious?

[__aaltlg1547]

So what to do now with that money? Change strategies? Reimplement on Android? Go into another industry? Liquidate?

Re:Obvious?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Cars
USA Market which is hard for European and Japanese manufacturers to break into
      Chrysler, Ford, GM

Most other countries either do not have a car industry, or have a set of local manufacturers competing mostly in their home market

The exceptions being Germany, and Japan for historical reasons ...

Toilet Paper: Under a variety of names
    Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble....

Whiskey and Cheese are specialist markets where a large number of small players can sell a prestige product in very small volumes and stay in business

Now count how many Generic Bulk Cheese and Whiskey manufacturers there are ...

 

Re:Obvious?

[heathen_01]

My computers are where I get my geek kicks.

My computer where I get my geek kicks is also a phone.

Re:Obvious?

[Alioth]

It's not necessarily *Android* specific. On the GPS in particular, the iPhone 3G's GPS drained the battery quite fast, so fast that when using a map *with the phone plugged into the car charger* the iPhone 3G with GPS turned on would actually use more power than the charger could provide, and run the battery down in under 4 hours. The iPhone 4's GPS on the other hand uses very little power (and is a much better GPS too, the comparison is like night and day). It used about 1% of the battery on an hour long bike ride (in this instance, the screen was off, but I was impressed on how much better it was on power consumption compared to the old 3G).

Re:Obvious?

[frank_adrian314159]

So one of the things I think is THE main failure of Android is the phones have crappy battery and the OS doesn't seem to be optimized for really running conservatively on the battery.

Amen to that. I've noticed that. And it's one of the reasons why my next phone will have an "i" at the beginning of its name. And what another poster says about GPS is dead on - this feature sucks power like there's no tomorrow on Android. I keep GPS off unless I'm actively using the navigation function of the phone - otherwise my battery's dead in a couple hours.

Re:Obvious?

[toruonu]

Are you keeping your apps open all the time? I found one of the major battery hoggers to be background apps and especially those you'd never suspect (like facebook). Especially bad is Viber. If you get a message in Viber you better read it and kill the bloody thing fast as otherwise it'll run your battery dry and your phone hot in under an hour. And I've seen that on multiple phones so it's a software issue of Viber. Try to see what happens if you after exiting the apps always kill them. Might be in for a surprise in battery life. And after you've confirmed that you can start to look which ones are the idiots hogging all the juice by keeping some running and killing others...

Re:Obvious?

[UpnAtom]

In addition to what h4rr4r wrote...

There's nothing efficient about not being able to do what you need to do because the functionality isn't there.
Malware isn't a problem on any phone or smartphone. Apple wanted to lock it down so they could charge developers money. It's all about the money to Apple.
MS are locking down their tablet because it's sold at-cost and they don't want people running Linux or Android on it.

What Apple did was exercise their massive marketing muscle and bring MP3 players into the mainstream. They added a phone to it, made a tablet version, charged people 3x what they cost and made a fortune. Can't fault their business savvy but it's a poor choice for anyone who wants to do anything other than browse the internet, take photos, play music, make music, play games..

Re:Obvious?

[Gilmoure]

BBs are big in Britain. Or they were.

Re:Obvious?

[phantomfive]

If they can't figure out something better to do with it, liquidate. It looks like that's something they've been considering.

Re:Obvious?

[phantomfive]

I believe I mentioned, "There is nowhere in the rules that says your company has to last forever."

Re:Obvious?

[phantomfive]

lol that sounds dangerous. Do you really trust management that much?

Re:Obvious?

[UnknownSoldier]

Oblg. Monty Python: "This is abuse, if you want an argument next door down the hall on the left." :)

Re:Obvious?

[Cimexus]

I have an iPhone 4 (not 4S) and I use it quite heavily. I get 2 days out of it almost exactly. No massive tweaks to settings:

- Push mail off
- Bluetooth off
- Push notifications and location services are ON on for all apps other than Mail
- Brightness at default (half way, with auto-brightness on).
- Don't run Skype/Viber/other things always sitting in the background waiting for incoming communication
- Auto-time-zone setting off (not sure if this has any real effect but I've heard rumours it can ... I'll just flick it on if I'm planning on travelling but otherwise no point to have this enabled as it seems to activate the GPS and check where you are very regularly)

My friend with an Android (Galaxy S2) is constantly complaining about his battery life. (Though I must confess I love that bigger screen of his!)

Re:Obvious?

[CrackedButter]

You're breaking this down by country where I'm looking at it on a global scale.

Re:Obvious?

[iluvcapra]

These companies need to realize that they shouldn't be selling phones, they should be selling computers.

Because if there's any business more profitable than mobile phones it's computer hardware! /s

Re:Obvious?

[arkane1234]

I'm waiting for rims version of hd-vhs ;)

Re:Obvious?

[arkane1234]

Railroad travel is big in America. Or it was.

Re:Obvious?

[vakuona]

35 millions phones a quarter is not a volume business?

At that rate, they would sell an iPhone to half the population in the USA in 5 months!

Re:Obvious?

[shutdown -p now]

WP7 will never have the app ecosystem that Apple and Android have for the simple reason that it offers zero code portability and reuse from other popular mobile devices. If you write a WP7 app, you have to do it from scratch in C# and Silverlight or XNA, there's no other option. One can get away with this as a market leader, but not when catching up - clearly when writing a new mobile app either iOS or Android will be the first platform of choice, and WP7 will be considered only afterwards; when people find out they can't port the logic at all, they often just go away.

This may be different when WP8 ships with support native code; we'll see.

Re:Obvious?

[mattack2]

They added a phone to it, made a tablet version, charged people 3x what they cost and made a fortune.

Are you referring to the iPad for the 3x part? That would imply 66% margins.

Plus, if they are so overpriced, why isn't there a plethora of tablet competitors with equivalent or better hardware (and I'm even ignoring the software, which most of the "overpriced" believers do) for a lot less money?

Re:Obvious?

[quacking duck]

How soon one forgets...

$500 was half the price analysts thought an Apple tablet would cost. Except "tablet" meant a different thing before the iPad came out.

Re:Obvious?

[UpnAtom]

iPad and iPhone with margins of 200+% (ie 3x more expensive). I suspect iPod is probably lower (75-100%).

I'm excluding development costs, obviously, which dwindle to nothing when you're selling hundreds of millions of units. I'm also excluding travel costs, retailer's cut.
Notably, Jobs moved manufacturing from US to China.

The new Google Nexus is supposed to cost a 1/3 of an iPhone 4S even after the retailer's cut. I'm not sure if it has fewer features, but it isn't locked down.

I haven't followed the tablet market as I find them somewhat useless.

Re:Obvious?

[mattack2]

Expensive prestige handsets? Why didn't anybody else match the price/features in 2007?

Re:Obvious?

[zippthorne]

But that's the point!

For as long as Windows Phone doesn't have the app ecosystem, it will have great difficulty making inroads into the smartphone market. (although, by definition, if it doesn't have apps to run, that's not much different from a feature phone....)

It could have the greatest operating system ever and still it would get bad sales, because people want to be able to buy apps. In that case sales would not indicate the quality of the OS, which encompasses more than just the availability of apps. Ease of porting apps to the phone may or may not be relevant to the quality argument, depending on how that feature is implemented, but it will affect app count, and therefore phone sales.

Re:Obvious?

[shutdown -p now]

I guess it depends on one's subjective definition of "OS quality". Mine directly includes breadth and quality of APIs and frameworks available to developers, and indirectly through that the ease of porting apps from other platforms. Simply put, WP7 is a poor mobile OS, because its sandbox is implemented in such a way that effectively requires verifiable managed code, which in turn limits developers and hampers portability. WP8 will presumably be better as its sandbox is implemented differently (much like Win8), and does not carry burdensome restrictions on developers.

Re:Obvious?

[UpnAtom]

Epic troll attempt. But failed.

lolumad?

Re:Obvious?

[Patch86]

Also see- Nokia.

It's amazing with how much regularity it happens that a company with a market share bordering on total domination one day can go down to the gutters the next. Not just in tech either.

Re:Obvious?

[zaphod777]

If I don't use my phone for anything other than to make a few calls my phone will last for days also. I am talking about having a phone with a screen on time of more than 3-4 hours. My hour and a half train ride really sucks it out of my phone. I have heard good things about the Galaxy Nexus though.

Re:Obvious?

[zaphod777]

It is my hardware I want to do what I like with it. I don't mind so much if the carriers are slow to roll out updates if I can do it myself. It may not have matter to people who don't know what it is but you will get a lot of support from the people who do know what it is.

Re:Obvious?

[Karlt1]

Why should the carriers have anything to do with updating the phone? The manufacturer provides the OS, why shouldn't they provide the upgrades? Apple does it and so does MS for their phones.

Re:Obvious?

[zaphod777]

Microsoft hasn't exactly had a stellar upgrade history so far .... Apple sure bot they really only push updates to 2 models and everything else gets left behind so it is easy for them.

Re:Obvious?

[zaphod777]

What I meant to say was that typically only two previous models of a given device will receive the update I am a bit surprised that the iPhone 3S will get the update since it will probably have a less than stellar experience, also I wouldn't really say they are full updates since Apple tends to leave key feature out on the older devices even though they should be able to use them (Siri). A lot of Android devices don't get updated because they are CCC or their specs are too low. Are you going to complain that you can't run Windows7 on your little 1.6 GHz Atom netbook that has 512MB of RAM? Anyway I pointed out Samsung before since they are now trying to focus on fewer models with more consistent branding and experience worldwide. That way they can release updates in a timely manner. They have done fairly well updating the Galaxy S2 although my Japanese one has yet to receive ICS it has received 3-4 updates in the last year and I am pretty sure it is the carrier that is being slow to release ICS.

Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll ...

[Gr8Apes]

No, it's not the end of the handset industry, nor are they in trouble. It's an industry that 80+% of the users toss their perfectly good handset every 18-24 months because their contracts generally make it worthwhile to do so. Just try to get a decent contract with a reasonable monthly fee that's lower than getting the same contract with a brand new shiny phone attached. However, just because you make a handset doesn't mean people will buy it, especially if that handset comes at virtually the same price or within easy disposable income range of the top of the line handsets. Why would you buy a Yugo if for $10 more you can own a Lexus?

No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[UpnAtom]

Just bring out a decent product. Nokia's N9 with zero marketing, blocked in all major markets and Nokia's own CEO briefing against it still managed to sell millions of units.

Because it's a superb smartphone with a superb OS.

RIM will bounce back if BB10 is as good as it's supposed to be, on decent hardware, in multiple form-factors.

Re:No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[ChunderDownunder]

BB10 has been delayed again. :( I'm optimistic about the platform, if it ever arrives. Qt, HTML5, Android player, QNX. Woo developers from 4 platforms webos (HTML 5), Symbian & meego (Qt), Android (app player).

The Torch looks quite nice with its slide out keyboard - HP Pre 3 heir?

Nevertheless, their website shows a hardware keyboard in portrait Torch 9810, substituted for a software keyboard in landscape Torch 9800 - the software keyboard doesn't seem sufficiently wider due to the wasted space around the screen.

Know your markets. Provide 3 models with BB10 (plus a classic BB7 for bread and butter customers).

(1) Touch-screen only - Galaxy S3 competitor.
(2) Portrait slider - Pre 3 successor.
(3) Landscape slider - HTC Arrive & Nokia E7/N900 successor (well minus the N900's openness - it is a proprietary OS after all).

Re:No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[Octorian]

And I wonder what would have happened if Nokia actually stood behind the N9, and didn't declare it dead before putting it on sale?

As it is, while there may be plenty of hobbyists doing N9 development, Nokia's situation makes it nearly impossible for any actual mobile-software business to justify investing so much as a dime in the platform.

Re:No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[UpnAtom]

Exactly. And the tablet with a budget model.

Re:No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[mbourgon]

If it becomes available in time. I own a bold, a 9900. Released in August, it took 3 additional months before AT&T (in my experience, a frequented-by-business carrier) had it. It doesn't sound like much, but there was pretty much no reason for it to be delayed. Free money left on the table; we had at least 3 people migrate to iPhones in that time.

Re:No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[UpnAtom]

I think it obviously would be a contender. If you can get millions of sales whilst trying to kill it, you might get 10 million by actively promoting it. Small numbers compared to A & A but a lot better than going out of business as they are now.

The N9 seems to have sold through its visual appeal. If lack of apps ever became an issue, Nokia could have bunged either ACL or Alien Dalvik on it (charged existing users). The N950 would have been released simultaneously filling a massive gap left by Blackberry all this time.
This year would have seen a refresh of hardware, notably faster processors, maybe an 8" slate to compete with tablets.

The N900 has a lot of apps. Not everything, but a lot. Development has slowed down a ton though someone just ported Homeworld. ;)

N9 development seems to be mostly porting from N900. It seems that Harmattan is going to be finished (a 4th service pack).

I read a theory from an 'insider' that Elop was brought in by a few big stockholders to wind down the company while they got out...

Re:No, just the mediocre handset industry.

[chrb]

Over 1 million Android phones are bought every day. RIM's problems are of RIM's making.

No, just RIM

[slazzy]

Sad to see a great Canadian tech company fail, but they just didn't keep up with changing market demands. Everyone now wants the latest games and movie s on their smartphones. It's not all about text and email anymore.

Re:No, just RIM

[flyingfsck]

Yup. I looked at a Blackberry years ago and thought that it is old fashioned and why would anyone want it? Finally government users and stock brokers clued in and switched to something better.

Re:No, just RIM

[tsa]

That's why I dumped my N900 for an iPhone.

Re:No, just RIM

[blackest_k]

Games maybe but movies on a phone, seriously?
Youtube clips are one thing but why would any one want to spend 90 minutes+ watching a movie on a tiny screen with a race between the film completing and the battery dying?

I guess you might use a phone as a replacement for the kids in car dvd player but you are seriously risking vomiting in the back seats. I loved to read as a kid but focusing on a paperback while travelling would make me queasy.

Games are a different matter as they fill "waiting time".

One thing which would be an improvement on current phones would be an e-ink or similar screen on phones as a secondary screen. Because none of the current screens are much good outside in sunlight. Maybe its time for the flip screen style phone to make a come back.

Re:No, just RIM

[Xiaran]

Lots of people commute on trains. Here in the UK I know people that spend 4 hours a day at least on a train. They watch movies and TV shows quite often.

Re:No, just RIM

[toruonu]

Wouldn't you be better off to use a tablet for that? Firstly the bigger screen makes it more comfortable, but you'd also not have to rush the battery as an iPad for example can last ca 10-11h playing movies so a 4h commute would leave you with a good 6h of work time left on the tablet possibly as you don't use it the whole time you'll have plenty even to watch another movie in the evening in bed :)

Re:No, just RIM

[Xiaran]

I think generally you are correct. I did know someone once who used a mobile phone that he charged of his laptop on the main train ride down... he used his mobile to watch because half way thru his commute he had to change to the London Underground which was very crowded and he said it was easier to just pull out his phone and continue watching. I guess the people I see every now and again watching their phones on trains.

Re:No, just RIM

[Cimexus]

While I agree with you about the tiny screen size, you'd be surprised how little power playing video takes on the iPhone if that video is in h264 and thus using the dedicated h264 decoder chip. It uses bugger all - can watch an hour of good-resolution video and it barely chews 5% for me.

RIM not industry

[Lev13than]

This is a RIM problem, not an industry problem. RIM's sales are way down because their technology is outdated and they can't get their shit together. If it were an industry problem we'd be seeing reduced volumes and purchase prices across the board. By that measure Huawei's success is a more accurate harbinger of what's to come.

Can't help but think that RIM's current situation is a lot like what Apple faced with Copland back in the mid-90s. After several years of trying to build their own next-gen system they gave up and purchased NeXT, which we now know as OS X. After numerous OS delays and corporate near-death experiences they finally launched OS X Public Beta in 2000. Given that 90% of current Mac users never touched Classic, there is little shared memory for the bloated, buggy mess that was Mac OS 6-9.

RIM was in the same place two years ago, with a nasty software stack and no ecosystem. They responded by buying QNX. Even with the latest delays they are still going to from purchase to market faster than Apple did with OS X. Same fundamental problem, same solution, dramatically different outcomes.

Re:RIM not industry

[erice]

RIM was in the same place two years ago, with a nasty software stack and no ecosystem. They responded by buying QNX. Even with the latest delays they are still going to from purchase to market faster than Apple did with OS X. Same fundamental problem, same solution, dramatically different outcomes.

OSX might have saved Apple from extinction, but it wasn't enough to make them thrive. The Ipod did that.

Qnx might save some residue of RIM but if they want to thrive again, they will need a fresh beachhead in a new market.

Re:RIM not industry

[bill_mcgonigle]

there is little shared memory for the bloated, buggy mess that was Mac OS 6-9.

bloated? Until recently I had a G3 that would boot both. OS9 started in about 10 seconds - OSX took about 2 minutes. OS9 was comfortable inside 16MB. OSX preferred about a quarter gig on that system. Everything about the UI was much faster on OS9.

Rail against its non-modern architecture all you want, but it doesn't make sense to call it 'bloated'.

Re:RIM not industry

[Animats]

Can't help but think that RIM's current situation is a lot like what Apple faced with Copland back in the mid-90s. After several years of trying to build their own next-gen system they gave up and purchased NeXT, which we now know as OS X.

Actually, Copeland made it to an alpha release, and it wasn't that bad. Jobs' Reality Distortion Field convinced Apple management that buying NeXT (and bailing Jobs out of a $400 million hole) would produce an OS sooner. In fact, it took years longer than Jobs said it would.

The big problem with Copland was that it wasn't fully backwards compatible with the previous System 7. Historically, Apple hadn't seen that as an issue; when a new OS came out, developers were expected to convert their applications. They'd done that when Apple went from System 6 to System 7. ("Upgrade your application or we'll move it to a folder where no one will ever see it again.") But by the time Copland was coming out, Apple no longer had enough clout to force that. Their biggest application developer was Microsoft, and Microsoft didn't want to convert.

Jobs' biggest contribution in that era was getting Microsoft to keep supporting Office on the Mac. That led to the infamous presentation where Bill Gates appeared on a giant screen above Steve Jobs.

Re:RIM not industry

[cheesybagel]

What the heck do you think iOS uses as a base? Ever noticed you program iOS apps in Objective-C?

Re:RIM not industry

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X didn't save Apple.
The iPod and iTunes did.
Nowadays, Apple major revenue source is the iPod successor, the iOS ecosystem.
The major proof of that is that they're trying to make the MacOS look like the iOS as much as possible with each update.

Re:RIM not industry

[antifoidulus]

Wasn't that bad? From 'kipedia:

New applications, those written with Copland in mind, would be able to directly communicate with the system servers and thereby gain many advantages in terms of performance and scalability. They could also communicate with the kernel to âoespin offâ separate applications or threads, which would run as separate processes in protected memory, as in most modern operating systems. However, these separate applications could not use non-re-entrant calls like QuickDraw, and thus could have no user interface. Apple suggested that larger programs could place their user interface in a normal Macintosh application, which would then start "worker threads" externally.[13]

How is that "not that bad"? Not to mention that devs complained that it crashed constantly, had no symmetric multiprocessing support etc. etc. It MAY have developed into something useful, but Apple was bleeding cash so badly at that point there was no way they could have survived until it did(sort of like RIM). NeXT by comparison was far, FAR more mature and stable. Apple was able to adapt NeXT OS to meet their needs much faster than they ever could have with Copland, and it had a much better architecture to boot. Some people seem to have a reality distortion field about Jobs's reality distortion field.....

Re:RIM not industry

[antifoidulus]

It was as buggy as my brain, forgetting to close my i tag and not adding "emphasis mine".

Re:RIM not industry

[epine]

From a different post:

I'll venture a guess that in 10 years, RIM's fall from grace will probably be a great case study in business schools around the world.

With CliffNotes supplied by Isaac Asimov, whose psychometrics first foresaw the distortion in the personal reality field.

RIM was in the same place two years ago, with a nasty software stack and no ecosystem. They responded by buying QNX. Even with the latest delays they are still going to from purchase to market faster than Apple did with OS X. Same fundamental problem, same solution, dramatically different outcomes.

Actually, I think RIM severely underestimated gluttony and narcissism, but your points are largely correct.

Hard to say RIM has been managed any worse than Apple at their worst.

Re:RIM not industry

[asdf7890]

You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating "kernel" and "operating system" (as people often do with Linux).

While there is talk of efforts within Apple to homogenize the platforms eventually, the full stack of libraries and features is significantly different between OSX and iOS despite each having a kernel based on the same ancestry.

Re:RIM not industry

[am 2k]

The original iPod didn't run iOS, they licensed a third party OS and added their own UI on top of it.

Re:RIM not industry

[Sique]

You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating an operating system and a distribution (as people general do, not only with linux).

From a CS point of view, the operating system is the program, which manages all ressources of a computer, including CPU, memory and I/O-devices and distributes the resources to the applications. That means that the Operating System is the kernel, the init process and the device drivers -- and nothing else. GUI is an appliction, command line interface is an application, services or server processes are applications. Everything you use to interact with the computer is an application. And an operating system together with a collection of applications is a distribution.

Re:RIM not industry

[evilviper]

Can't help but think that RIM's current situation is a lot like what Apple faced with Copland back in the mid-90s. After several years of trying to build their own next-gen system they gave up and purchased NeXT, which we now know as OS X. After numerous OS delays and corporate near-death experiences they finally launched OS X Public Beta in 2000.

What saved Apple from bankruptcy was the iMac. It ran classic mac os, and yet made Apple huge amounts of money, which it needed to continue operating long enough to put anything else out there. Copland / NeXT had nothing to do with it (except that the NeXT acquisition also happened to bring in a competent CEO).

Did OS X actually bring-in a lot of new users? Or were they brought-in by the hardware, apps, or advertising, and just happen to use OS X, and would just as easily have used OS9 without complaint? Being an early adopter of a all-new OS is anything but fun.

Re:RIM not industry

[asdf7890]

Fairy enough.

I'm happy to be told that I'm technically incorrect on this, but I've always considered the base libraries and other ubiquitous parts of the software stack (those parts that are assumed to be present in some version from a clean install, which for iOS includes GUI libraries but for Linux distributions does not) to be part of what sits under the umbrella of "OS".

Perhaps platform is the term I should be using.

Re:RIM not industry

[YttriumOxide]

Did OS X actually bring-in a lot of new users? Or were they brought-in by the hardware, apps, or advertising, and just happen to use OS X, and would just as easily have used OS9 without complaint? Being an early adopter of a all-new OS is anything but fun.

Can't speak for anyone else of course, but for me OS X brought me in to buying their hardware. I absolutely hated Classic MacOS and had no interest in ever using it outside of work (my work was, and still is, a mix of Windows, MacOS and Linux).

When Mac OS X came out, I found it quite interesting, although still not enough for me to migrate at home. By 10.2, I decided I might get a Mac as a secondary system at home; and then by 10.4 I basically stopped upgrading other systems. At home, I now have three Macs, two Linux systems and one Windows laptop (my wife's).

Re:RIM not industry

[Gr8Apes]

Can't help but think that RIM's current situation is a lot like what Apple faced with Copland back in the mid-90s. After several years of trying to build their own next-gen system they gave up and purchased NeXT, which we now know as OS X. After numerous OS delays and corporate near-death experiences they finally launched OS X Public Beta in 2000.

What saved Apple from bankruptcy was the iMac.

What saved Apple from bankruptcy was MS's $150M investment, which allowed Apple enough running room to bring out the products that turned the company around. Granted MS's investment at the time was more an attempt to keep the major (and only) secondary player around to point to during their antitrust trial and say "We are not a monopoly! There's Apple" than anything else.

Re:RIM not industry

[dkf]

You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating an operating system and a distribution (as people general do, not only with linux).

You seem to think that a significant number of people care about the distinction. They care about the apps and the content and the integrated platform. The distinction between the pieces used to make the integrated platform is about as interesting to them as the details of electricity transmission: as long as it works when they turn on the switch, they don't want to know anything else.

More formally, the apps are programmed against an API. The implementation of that API is only partially done by the kernel (in iOS's case, a Darwin variant I believe) but it is the API that represents the operating system to the app, not the syscalls.

Re:RIM not industry

[ceoyoyo]

iOS and OS X are pretty much the same operating system, although iOS is quite a bit pared down. What's different is the GUI layered on top. A better comparison would be swapping X11 for something else on Linux.

Re:RIM not industry

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX is based on Unix, which gives it a higher geek index than Microsoft. On the other hand, it has a lot of user experience polish that Linux lacks. I found that these two factors caused a lot of geeks (who, by and large, previously considered Apple to be a toymaker) to switch to Mac.

Re:RIM not industry

[Sique]

If someone points out that there is a difference between an operating system and a kernel, then there should be the whole story. But nevertheless, you could still run apps on iOS that aren't coded against the API. Apple's approval mechanism guarantees that those apps won't be found in the AppStore, and there is a good chance that those apps won't run on later versions of iOS, but in general, they are possible.

Handsets, eggs & milk

[ElitistWhiner]

Inelastic demand ...like milk and eggs at your local grocery store...if you're out of handsets your customer goes over to the competition shopping. No handsets, you're out of business. RIMM handset delay puts their customers infront of the competition...if ever they come back to RIM - HELL will freeze over.

No competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can make a phone with all the patent traps?

Re:No competition

[sg_oneill]

The people with the patents. The joys of government enforced monopolies.

Re:No competition

[Relayman]

What, RIM has no patents?

free market at work

[mbaGeek]

nope, nothing to worry about - unless you happen to like/work for/own stock in RIM. this is just the handset market maturing

two examples of market consolidation:
once upon a time there were a lot of car companies in the United States
I'm sure a lot of /.s remember multiple computer manufacturers from the 1990's that aren't around

RIM might be in a death spiral but I wouldn't write them off yet. As far as I can tell they have the "corporate email" market cornered - which is a nice thing to have, but tiny compared to Apple's iPhone dominance.

I'd like an iPhone 4s myself (and when upgrade time rolls around I'll probably get one - but I'll wait for the prices to drop when Apple releases iPhone 5). Unless my employer requires it I'm not going to get anything from RIM ...

competition is usually good for consumers (drives innovation, lowers prices) but that it also means there will be "winning" and "losing" companies in the marketplace

So once again the "/. question in the subject header == False" - Apple and Samsung are simply making superior products and/or out competing RIM (and/or using the patent system better)

Who cares?

[DogDude]

I'm getting really tired of these lame Slashdot "articles" about some schmoe guessing what industry tends will be and who will own what market share. Who cares? I sincerely doubt that anybody reading Slashdot has any real, vested interest in what any particular electronic gadget industry is going to do.

Microsoft Deserve credit too

[Freaky Spook]

In apple's case they re-wrote the rulebook and turned the first question abotu every product into "But is it better than apple's offering"

Microsoft expanding their ActiveSync license program as well I would contribute to helping the iPhone succeed. Suddenly you didn't need to invest in expensive BES licensing costs, windows licensing and hardware costs just to connect a phone to a mailbox. When that happened I wondered just exactly how Blackberry would react to the market, and well they didn't.

Re:Microsoft Deserve credit too

[h4rr4r]

Not only Google, but lots of other Mail servers also license ActiveSync.

Blackberry should have licensed it 5 years ago, and made BES an alternative and easy add on for more features. Having it in BBOS 10 is a day late and a dollar short, it will not save them.

Re:Microsoft Deserve credit too

[guruevi]

You never needed to though. I don't see why you couldn't just enable IMAP on your e-mail server. It has explicit push these days, it always had IDLE which the iPhone is just fine with (uses virtually no energy).

ActiveSync is just another one of those botched protocols that makes sure nobody else can play unless MS lets them. ActiveDirectory is another example, Kerberos, LDAP over proprietary links. ActiveX, again similar to a Java application but it runs only on Windows platforms and is horribly insecure.

Re:Microsoft Deserve credit too

[ceoyoyo]

Exactly. The point of a smartphone is that it's a little computer. I don't really count blackberries, at least the classic ones, as smartphones. They've got a crippled browser and a proprietary e-mail system. They were like those "feature phones" that would only let you visit certain websites.

As soon as everyone had real smartphones that could get your e-mail the same way your computer did, RIM's expensive feature phone business started to dry up.

Re:Microsoft Deserve credit too

[phoenix_rizzen]

Before ActiveSync, you needed a hodge-podge of protocols and services to sync your e-mail, calendar, contacts, todo lists, etc, etc, etc to a phone. Walking people through that over a phone was not a lot of fun. Especially since every phone supported things just a little differently. And you had to open up a slew of ports on the firewall.

After ActiveSync, you only needed 1 protocol to sync all of the above, the phone calls became a lot simpler, and only 1 port needed to be open on the firewall.

Yeah, it's so horrible having to support ActiveSync!

Re:Microsoft Deserve credit too

[shutdown -p now]

The point isn't whether BB supports ActiveSync. The point is that other phones also do. This effectively brought a standard push email protocol to mobile devices, where before it was exclusively a BB realm. So push email was not a killer feature for BB anymore, and then iPhone took over on its other numerous merits.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[c0lo]

Why would you buy a Yugo if for $10 more you can own a Lexus?

Because one may no longer drive a Lexus?
Or, just as a statement, Yugos may become fashionable again? (those bastards with disposable income... one can't predict what they'll have in mind next).

Re:Who cares?

[fferreres]

Given that smartphones are the most widelydeployed and used general purpose computers in hands of individuals, I guess they do care. It's the future of computing.

They were in the market of cheap buffet style email for corp users and managed to get there by being convincing carriers to not price by kb with their platform.

The best chance of survival for them is to buy a T-mobile or Sprint (with the iPhone deal RIM is screwed now) and offer corp. plans for $30 a month, and then building an enterprise app ecosystem around a solid platform as QNX. No sane company will pay $100 per employee/mo if they could pay $30 and have a platform that can run apps just as good as the alternatives.

They though they where a premium brand with a premium product and now even if the products excel, they are irrelevant. If given a choice, most will prefer widely used platforms w/hundreds thousand apps and solid development tools.

Buying a carrier and being the low cost provider for corps is one of the few things that could save them - but may be too late.

Stephen Elop's reaction

[93 Escort Wagon]

Stephen Elop decides to kick back, relax - loads up Slashdot for the first time in years and sees...

But the size of the F1Q13 sales miss raises another question: apart from Apple and Samsung, is the handset industry drifting into serious trouble?

"Hey, that was uncalled for!"

what it signals...

[khipu]

is that RIM made lousy management decisions, has a bad product, and is now paying the price for that. That's a good thing.

Re:what it signals...

[Quakeulf]

It still won't stop managers from never learning from their bad decisions!

Re:what it signals...

[MtViewGuy]

Besides RIM's bad management decisions, what has REALLY helped Apple is that the iPhone from the 3G on allows the _end user_ to install their own apps and update the phone operating system itself _without interference from the cellphone carrier_. That's why on the iPhone, bugs get fixed a lot quicker than even on Android platforms, because the update/bug fix process is completely controlled by Apple.

Re:what it signals...

[khipu]

There are plenty of carrier-independent Android phones in the US. Worldwide, in many countries, carrier-independent phones are the norm. Also, Android phones are a lot cheaper than iPhones, so many people just upgrade by buying a new phone.

Re:what it signals...

[MtViewGuy]

But still, isn't that a big wasteful? Given that the iPhone 4 can be easily upgraded to iOS 6.0, you will get to enjoy most of the functionality of iOS 6.0 on anyway and make your old iPhone 4 still very viable for at least one more year.

Also, a big issue with Android phones is the fact cellphone manufacturers put their own "skin" on Android, which seriously complicates updating Android itself. On an unlocked Samsung Galaxy SII, it took several months before Android 2.3 and the Samsung "TouchWiz" interface was updated to Android 4.0 and the current version of TouchWiz.

So...

[SmallFurryCreature]

HP/Compaq, Lenovo, Acer, Asus, Dell, Samsung, Sony, Fujitsu... who among these would you call small players? A small player in my mind is a store chain that sells rebranded or white label computers, not an asian mega giant.

Just because YOU don't shop around, doesn't mean nobody else does.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

And guess what? Most of those computers are all built by a few companies. Often they're made in the same factory.

Re:So...

[Karlt1]

HP/Compaq - their PC division makes so little money they thought about getting rid of it.

Lenovo - usually loses money every now and thn thy make a slight profit.

Acer - hasn't done well since the netbook craze.

Dell - Is seeing revenue and profit decline and trying to move away from PCs to services.

Sony - reported billion dollar losses.

Does that seem like a healthy industry?

Re:So...

[h4rr4r]

Most of those don't even manufacture PCs, only Acer and lenovo as far as I know.

Re:So...

[alfredo]

All of the above used the same OS, and all were competing on price. Sony did try to distinguish themselves in the design department, but they couldn't match the Apple design team. HP made some handsome machines, but once booted, they looked like everyone else. They were all Microsoft's bitch, and though it gave an advantage in some markets, they had no control of the quality of the OS. In the end, they were boring in design and use. Their products were associated with work. Booting up your home computer shouldn't remind you of the crushing boredom of your beige box in your cubicle.

Re:So...

[Karlt1]

How is this any different from the phone industry?

Samsung - makes 26% of the industry profit because they can manufacturer their own components.

Motorola Mobility - hasn't made a profit ad a standalone entity in two years.

HTC - very slim profit. 1% of the industry profit.

Sony/Ericson - losing money.

RIM - losing money.

Nokia- losing money.

LG - losing money.

Only three mobile companies are making money - Apple 66% + of the industry profits, Samsung most of the rest with HTC making 1%.

Re:So...

[ceoyoyo]

They also, except Sony, engaged in a race to the bottom. It seems people ARE willing to pay for a bit of quality and design.

Sony might have succeeded except they weren't as good as Apple and pissed everyone off with their other shenanigans.

Re:So...

[alfredo]

Sony did have some quality issues.

Re:So...

[LordLimecat]

they had no control of the quality of the OS.

The quality of the OS has not been a problem for 3 years now, and before that was only a problem for 2 years.

Nowadays, they DO have control of the quality of the shipped "distro", and THAT is a problem-- they inevitably make it far far worse by lowering PC performance by 20-30% with all their bloatware.

Re:So...

[chicago_scott]

It would be nice to get a source every once in a while when people start throwing out numbers and "facts"

Re:So...

[Karlt1]

Here you go....

http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/03/the-phone-market-in-2012-a-tale-of-two-disruptions/

Re:So...

[chicago_scott]

Thanks

Re:So...

[alfredo]

But it is hard to overcome perceptions. Also the OS is associated with work. I remember after a day of data entry on a pc, it was fun to fire up my Linux or Mac OS. They weren't part of my work day. There was no feeling of dread.

Re:So...

[Patch86]

What I find fascinating about that chart is how things have changed over time. Samsung's profit has been consistent, with only a brief squeeze immediately after the iPhone took off. HTC's profit was consistent right up until last quarter. LG & RIM both (in different ways) experienced a GROWTH in profit share after iPhone, before collapsing again. And Nokia...well, poor old Nokia...

Eheh

[SmallFurryCreature]

The beauty of MeeGo is that it is Linux, you already got a ton of software, real software not fart apps and they are FREE! Developed by developers who have a heart for their application, not a desire to charge big bucks for inferior software people have gotten for free for decades. Reall, 1,59 for for a video player that doesn't even support basic formats? No thanks.

Re:Eheh

[DerPflanz]

This is a weird argument. I had a N900, with all the advantages you describe here: Linux, real software, free. However, since I have a Galaxy Nexus with Android, I have the feeling the overall quality of apps is *way* better. And guess what, many of the good ones are free (as in beer) too. When choosing between paying some money for an app that does do what I want, compared to a app 'from a developer with a heart of his app' that looks ugly and stays in beta forever, I'd pay.

Besides, developing for Android is a lot nicer than for the N900. I don't know how far MeeGo/Moblin/Maemo has become in the last year, but I really like Android from both a user's and developer's perspective.

Re:Eheh

[ChunderDownunder]

Different strokes for different folks.

Efforts to hybridize Android and traditional linux include
(a) Ubuntu mobile
(b) Porting wayland to android
(c) hardware virtualization in the Cortex A15

So it has traditionally been the Google way via the 'Play' store, or the GNU way via X11 and a package manager but one day Android apps will run seamlessly alongside desktop apps.

Re:Eheh

[Dynamoo]

Any Android 2.0+ handset has a more polished OS than the N900, but that shouldn't have been a problem if Nokia had pressed on with Maemo development. But they shitcanned the Maemo platform and tried to merge it with Moblin into MeeGo at a critical moment, so they expected follow-on handset never turned up.. Nokia wasted a LOT of time messing around with MeeGo. By the time the N9 came out, it was basically irrelevant.

Even so.. there's a brisk trade in N9s on eBay, and if you really want to see something expensive check out the prices that the N950s are going for..

Re:Eheh

[UpnAtom]

I think a lot of N900 developers would shun Android simply because Qt is much nicer to develop for.

Re:Eheh

[UpnAtom]

It's easier to polish an OS which does a quarter as much.

If the N9 is so irrelevant, how did it sell millions in spite of being suppressed by Elop?

Can I build my own handset?

[Taco Cowboy]

We only have a handful of large players in the handset industry right now.

If it's like the PC industry, we'll get exactly what we want for dirt cheap from any one of a 1,000 different manufacturers operating on razor-thin margins.

If it's like the PC industry, we geeks who build our own rig want to build our own handsets

When can we do that?
 

Re:Can I build my own handset?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Ever heard of GNU Radio? Get cracking.

Re:Can I build my own handset?

[David Gerard]

The GNUphone!

Re:Not surprising

[geoffaus]

lets hope you arent travelling overseas - the blackberry has good data compression - the iphone will cost a lot more in data charges Also if you type lots of emails the bb is so much faster than trying to type on a touch screen

Re:Not surprising

[ThatsMyNick]

Opera Mini; Swype.

Re:Not surprising

[Tridus]

BB10 happens to be missing a feature - nobody can buy it. Sadly, "it shipped" is a critical feature. It doesn't matter how amazing it is without that one feature.

Meanwhile, Android is a crowded market that has lots of demand. People actually buy Android phones. This is the same mistake Nokia made: thinking that being the big fish in a swimming pool is better then being a small fish in the ocean.

Fanboys love to insult Android as second rate, but their "amazing" vendors would trade places with Samsung in a heartbeat because they (and Android) happen to do really well on the metric that matters in the business world: people actually buy it.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[zippthorne]

Pretty sure they're viewed mostly as "Toyotas with a higher price tag" in the US as well, except for the people that buy 'em of course. Not that there's anything wrong with Toyotas, though. They're certainly doing better than our nationalized automakers.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[Gr8Apes]

I chose Lexus (Toyota) because it was something other than the usual Mercedes/BMW statement, and I didn't feel the need to go to extremes. On the statement about "crappy", I think I'd rather have a "crappy" Lexus (since that's a small subset of Toyota's vehicles, and Toyota does have some truly crappy cars) than a "good" US car. Less maintenance, less trouble, and a longer good driving life.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[Gr8Apes]

At the least, you deserve a funny mod. I'll wager that Yugo's will become fashionable again probably about the same time as parachute pants return as the hot fad item. But that doesn't detract from the current situation that they need to market the equivalent of Yugo's at a Lexus price to make a decent profit. (Sorry, that car analogy is now dead) The supply/demand curve just doesn't favor their desired pricing model and won't as long as those highly subsidized desirable phones are available for pennies more.

Re:Not surprising

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Hello, Apple fanboy here. :)

To that end though, RIM, Nokia, HTC, Moto, et al. need to follow Apple's example.

Chasing market share doesn't mean chasing profits. In order for all of these companies to win, the others do not have to lose. Steve Jobs said it back in the 90's about Apple vs. Microsoft, and it's absolutely as true today as it was then. There are a lot of pockets to fill with phones. There's plenty of space for everyone.

Make your phones profitable and the experience not suck. Unfortunately that's a mantra no one seems to want to run with.

Also, Android isn't just second rate, it's third rate because it's shackled to really shitty OEMs and lousy carriers. Google isn't interested in the ownership experience.

They're certainly focused on making Jelly Bean as good as they possibly can, however, I don't think from a philosophical level that Google realizes where their weak points are. Even if they get the UI silky smooth and somehow fix the audio latency problems, the fact that they ship Android with a task manager shows they really don't care about the reality of living with a device that's constrained by battery life.

The fact that the whole Android experience is really disjointed means that Google doesn't seem to care much for how people actually use their phones. From the music player down to the browser. We're 4 years out since Google launched Chrome for the desktop and we're now just getting that design savvy in Android?

Yes, iOS has a lot of glaring weaknesses, but it's the difference between having weak legs and weak arms. Google has weak legs, it can not stand. It is unsustainable.

What kind of scares me about Android is that if Google's Ad sales business goes all pear shaped, then where does this leave Android? With any other mobile OS, the OS was the product. or the OS was driving hardware sales. Android is a advertisement spewing Trojan Horse. So if Google's ad business tanks, Android's not long for this world.

Not at all

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

First, RIM is in this pickle because they got complacent when they were dominating the mobile market with one of the most popular devices on the market. Instead of innovating all they did was tweak their designs a little and create designer models of the same thing. The story of RIM is often repeated where a market leader is suddenly playing catch-up when a distruptor enters the market with something dramatically different. RIM is a story of how everything is being done wrong by a mobile device company, even the announcement of a delayed BB10 devices is hurting the company because the remaining Blackberry fan boys are not going to buy a BB today that is going to be replaced tomorrow.

Secondly, the market will not tolerate ONE maker of all their mobile devices. Apple will not become the ONLY player in the mobile device market, where everyone owns an iPhone or iPad or iSomething. Clearly it is obviously that as popular as iThings are, Android devices are growing quickly and outnumbering iOS devices. Sure, maybe Android devices are not as good or flashy or refined, but there are significantly more people out there unwilling to pay the Apple tax for a product. In any market there are fanboys and the fanboys are NEVER going to agree on ONE thing, that is an absolute guarantee.

The question is then how many players in the mobile market will consumers tolerate? So far it looks like its only 2. RIM lost their market position through complacency and Microsoft is trying to claw their way in, but it seems consumers are only interested in having 2 options, iOS or Android devices.

I think RIM is done, period. Any speculation for the company to rebound belies a repetitive habit for failure that began when the iPhone and Android devices were released. RIM would have to shift modus operandi dramatically before it could even be considered a competitor, and I don't think they have it in them. What RIM should do now is try to position themselves as an attractive company to buy, I am sure the patent portfolio for RIM is a goldmine for Apple, Google, or Microsoft and would significantly boost any company looking to compete in the mobile market. But ultimately RIM technology needs to be directed by an innovator and there is nobody at RIM that can claim that position.

Arrogance

[EmperorOfCanada]

For me RIM has always reeked of arrogance. The people who use it, the people who sell it, the complicated plans, the whole dominating of companies, right down to the set up of their servers; all arrogant. There was nothing happy about their phones. iPhone users definitely have a "look at me, look at me" thing going but with apps like angry birds there is a more fun vibe with the iPhone. Nokia (I know it's Finnish) always had a Tutonic, "My phone is better engineered than your phone." thing going.

I don't know if RIM encouraged it but so many companies handed BBs to their managers and crap flip phones to their grunts. There often would be this huge cut off where some arbitrary level of employee would not be allowed to get a BB. To make it worse RIM gave the IT people the ability to select and block various features as they would choose. IT people are famous for pissing people off with their arbitrary policies so more Apple fodder. This sort of elitism just fed the Apple monster giving the joe employee the desire to buy a better phone for themselves. Then it got nasty for RIM when the top top management would break out from the RIM stranglehold and force the IT people to get them an Apple.

In the end all these companies ended up handing out BBs to employees who used their own money to get an iPhone/iPad for their own use. Pretty bad when your product is free and still can't win the hearts and minds of all but a few hard core MBA types.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[c0lo]

At the least, you deserve a funny mod.

Funny or not, what I suggested doesn't contradict your line.

What I said amounts to: for them to survive, they'll need to find a niche; either dirt-cheap to make (e.g. the "senior/elder mobile phone" is so basic most probably it costs pennies to make, but is still sold in the $40-80 range) or to sell it as a fashion item at truly ballooned prices. Being "smart" or "enterprise targeted" won't do it any more: too many other brands are already smart enough and "Bring your own device" + "cloudification" move is in full swing

Re:Not surprising

[symbolset]

It's too late. A year ago this might have worked.

Get an amateur radio license

[tepples]

we geeks who build our own rig want to build our own handsets

When can we do that?

Hams do it all the time. And you don't need Morse code anymore to get a ham license.

Re:Get an amateur radio license

[Caerdwyn]

But you DO need FCC approval on a per-device level to transmit in the cellular spectrum. And unlike in ham radio in which all you get for unlicensed transmissions is a stern lecture from a cranky old man (the reality is that the FCC only acts on the very worst transgressions in the ham band), if you transmit on cellular frequencies without an approved device, the FCC will be all over your ass. Because of the potential for serious harmful disruption; you might even end up on the DHS radar and discover first-hand how paper-thin the veneer of "civil rights" actually is. Disabling a portion of a city's phone infrastructure is just the kind of thing that Really Bad People would love to do.

Cellular spectrum isn't Citizen's Band. Homebrew will land your ass in front of a judge.

Also, there are serious restrictions on what you can and cannot do and say on the ham bands. You cannot engage in work-related topics (that's what commercial bands are for). You are not allowed anonymity; your callsign has to be given, and it's in a publicly searchable database. You are forbidden to encrypt your traffic (digital or otherwise), or even engage in coded speech. You're not supposed to swear. You MUST get out of the way of emergency traffic. And nobody needs a warrant to listen in or record your conversations.

Ham radio is great fun and is useful in regional emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, but is in no way a substitute for a telephone (socially, technologically, or legally).

Now, if someone came up with a user-configurable platform with an approved radio and approved locked-down radio driver code (which is separate from OS code, as people who write jailbreaking software know), there might be a very small niche market for that. But it's only a niche; don't fool yourselves otherwise. Slashdotters are not the center of the world, do not drive social or legal policy, and for that we should all count ourselves lucky.

Re:Get an amateur radio license

[tepples]

Cellular spectrum isn't Citizen's Band.

I'm aware of that. What I was trying to say is that people who want to homebrew can use amateur radio and surrender their privacy instead of using cellular.

Now, if someone came up with a user-configurable platform with an approved radio and approved locked-down radio driver code

That would be called a "mobile broadband card for a computer".

Laptop from parts

[tepples]

the difference to pc industry is obvious though, you can't as easily just buy the parts and throw them together

You can't with a laptop either.

also - bb only ever had a lead in very few countries. they were never a truly global contender

And for a long time, Nokia was without a hit in the United States market. Even people who wanted an N900 couldn't walk into the store and get one.

Re:Laptop from parts

[gl4ss]

the united states market doesn't matter shit in global perspective.

take a look at the years nokia didn't have a hit in usa, then take a look at their bottom line(excluding network business). yeah, nokia should have just kept ignoring usa rather than fuck up rest of the world to get a small piece of the operator tax pie.

and actually, you can quite easily buy custom laptops and nobody is going to sue you for selling them, not even if you include communications dongles to do 3g and voice. that's just the way the world is.

RIM's issues aren't technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Soooo..

RIM is finally taking it up the ass. 5000 layoffs today. That's not the shocker. The shocker is they have 15,000 employees! DOING WHAT?

Here's a Canadian Engineer's perspective that you won't hear on the news.

First off; I have to use one of these flaming pieces of crap for work. Specifically, a Torch 9810 and a Playbook. They're so bad as to be borderline un-useable. Apple bias aside. Everyone I work with now carries two phones. One for secure network access and one for everything else. This is a bad f--king sign.

But that's an aside.

Back when I was in University, Nortel used to be a bad-ass R&D wing of the telcos here. If you make a phone call, you use tech they invented. Bell's original work, and Marconi's first tower transmissions were here. There was a great, long-standing communications industry tradition.

Then in the late 90's, I noticed something. All the idiots I couldn't stand in school started doing their co-op terms at Nortel. Then they went on to full employment. These aren't stupid people, they're just the unmotivated f--kheads looking for a job, not doing it for the love of the art or any particular aptitude.

There's a place for them, and a place for me, never the two shall meet. Shortly after the f--kheads moved in, they went the MBA route, and the f--khead MBA culture took over, the good engineers left, and a decades-long institution collapsed in bankruptcy. The demise of Nortel was well publicized here and in the general media.

Guess where all those fuckheads got jobs after?

Yes, the very same f--kheads bloated and tanked RIM with the very same mistakes. They hired the same unmotivated, mediocre people who do what mediocre people do best. Run s--t in to the ground and hire useless, ineffective management on management.

I'm thinking about following where these idiots go so I can short the next company to go.

People are stupid. On the upside, maybe I can get rid of the @#@$!ing pos work phone sooner rather than later.

No mercy. They deserve that they get. The markets will salt the earth in Waterloo before they're done.

I wonder if there's time to short RIM on the way down to $1.00.

what a coincidence

[slashmydots]

Since the tax penalty or getting health insurance now costs right around the same or more per year as a smartphone with a data plan, I'm thinking they'll be declining in the near future whether they are currently or not. And don't pretend while you're driving through a poor neighborhood that you don't see people with a smartphone in one hand and a cigarette and 2 dog leashes in the other. Guess which one of the three they'll be eliminating.

For the record, my company dropped all our blackberries 3 months ago in favor of Android because their awful memory leak of an enterprise software suite was a nightmare, not because we decided we don't need smartphones.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[Gr8Apes]

I understood what you said and largely agree with you, my apologies, I wasn't clear. My opinion is that for an entity like RIM to survive at anything approaching their current size, they need a whole lot more than a niche - they need something profitable with some scale to it. Granted, your "elderly" concept has a large potential market, but generally their income level is lower, so you need to make seriously inexpensive product to make any money off of it.

Gnuphone don't know, but Freerunner did exist ;-)

[Herve5]

The open, Linux-based Freerunner... I still have one, with its nice, large, colorscreen (that broke in 2 weeks). When it worked, I ran all sorts if things on it, like TangoGPS on what was then --and probably still is the only open-source GPS in the world.
All in all, this probably means their economic model was wrong... they died.

Not true on Android, or iOS

[SuperKendall]

That's true of iOS, but how is it true of applications on Android?

It's not true of iOS. Anyone can jailbreak if they desire flexibility and alternate app sources.

Also iOS is not free of those things either, many people have to root devices for flexibility in installing updates to the OS. Also the apps are in theory almost as locked down.

Re:Not true on Android, or iOS

[shutdown -p now]

Jailbreaking is not a supported scenario. There's no guarantee that any future version of iOS will have a security hole that will enable jailbreaking (since all jailbreaks to date are just that, exploiting some security holes).

In contrast, on Nexus devices, rooting the phone is supported by design (voids your guarantee, of course, but that's a different issue). And you don't even need to root to sideload apps, it's just a checkbox in settings.

no

[poetmatt]

Not "end up with", we're already there. We already have 2 or 3 large players, but if you're thinking in terms of "competitors" you need to look at originators of the products, not the manufacturers.

We have: apple, google, microsoft.

There really isn't anyone else in the handset competitor category right now. Google entails: every major manufacturer. Apple entails: apple (via every manufacturer). Microsoft entails: every major manufacturer (eventually). So really it's everyone developing new things using the same subset of tools and trying to differentiate, but behind the scenes almost nothing in manufacturing has changed in more than probably 20 years.

Look the other way

[psybre]

RIM's loss is simply another symptom that we are accelerating toward the singularity. Nothing to see here, as everything is obsolete the moment you see it, so move along...

Unknown sources and AIDE

[tepples]

Anyone can jailbreak

Provided the DMCA exemption allowing jailbreaking is renewed. That's not guaranteed, and if it isn't renewed, Apple could use the precedent in Sony v. Hotz to shut down U.S. jailbreaking.

Also the apps are in theory almost as locked down.

The differences I'm referring to are the following: 1. All major Android phones and tablets support adb install; in fact, Google requires this as a condition of licensing the Market application. 2. Android has an IDE on the Market, unlike Apple which has historically been reluctant to approve tools for programming on the device. Or what has changed in the three years since this story?

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[fuzznutz]

That is exactly why I left AT&T and got a prepaid plan with Straight Talk. I bought an unlocked iPhone and now I'm not stuck in a two year contract. My old contract expired 18 months ago and I was tired of paying "extra" and didn't want to sell my soul for another two years.

I will NEVER go back to contracts again. It's a sucker situation. You either lock yourself to a carrier or you overpay for your service. Often it's both.

Re:Just because you build it doesn't mean they'll

[iluvcapra]

What I said amounts to: for them to survive, they'll need to find a niche;

I think you've got it backwards, the retail strategy isn't the problem -- BB still has healthy sales, particularly outside the US and in the lesser-developed markets, but their sale price per handset and their profit margins have been declining for years.

Handsets is a design and supply chain business. Samsung owns it own chip foundries, self-sources most of its own components and does a lot of its own manufacturing; Apple makes big capital plays and corners the markets in high-end materials, components and inputs, and funnels them through one of the deepest and most efficiently managed manufacturing supply chain in the business.

There are still plenty of BB customers out there but BB never made the transition from being a singular prestige brand to being in a competitive environment. Samsung was always in that position and Apple has learned so many lessons over years of screwing up they were ready when competitors came looking for them.

Anyone means anyone

[SuperKendall]

Provided the DMCA exemption allowing jailbreaking is renewed.

People were jailbreaking before that, and they would be after. What you can DO is not modulated by anything so stupid as a permission slip.

SHAME on a Slashdot reader for not understanding that intrinsic fact of life.

1. All major Android phones and tablets support adb install;

Jailbreak, so does iOS.

2. Android has an IDE on the Market, unlike Apple

Try Again. Or don''t, if you can't get it right to begin with.

Perhaps you forgot that you can use gcc (or llvm) on a jailbroken iPhone to compile also...

The simple fact remains that for technical hackers iOS is the superior platform, because there are no limits and it's much easier to hack (by that I mean the traditional sense of mod) any app on the system, even third party apps.

Let me get this straight:

[Chris Mattern]

RIM's wider handsets are suffering from huge signal loss?

The three game consoles

[tepples]

I've come to the conclusion that mature markets seem to gravitate towards 3 major players [...] and a bunch of also-rans

What are these mature markets with few players?

Other than Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, what makers of set-top gaming devices are left? PC makers tend not to market their products for set-top use.

Do you really need legs though?

[tepples]

it's the difference between having weak legs and weak arms. Google has weak legs, it can not stand.

Do you really need legs though?

Yes, Microsoft has done that

[tepples]

I think he means you can't run software you want if it conflicts with the wishes of Apple or the Carriers. [...] MS has never done that

Windows Phone 7 has the same lockdown as iOS and even the same $99 per year to unlock your own hardware. In fact, Apple got the idea for this $99 per year from Microsoft, which charges $99 per year to run your own XNA games on your own Xbox 360. The original Xbox was even more selective about who was allowed to develop, as is the Xbox 360 in countries without the Indie Games store.

Re:Yes, Microsoft has done that

[h4rr4r]

I meant MS has never made me disrespect the price of good software. On a daily basis I see how bad MS software is.

...even if they go to real jail

[tepples]

People were jailbreaking before that, and they would be after.

Would you continue to recommend jailbreaking even if Apple were to succeed in a string of lawsuits analogous to Sony v. Hotz? If you get caught providing jailbreak tools, good luck breaking out of real jail.

Re:Not surprising

[Rich0]

The Nexus, unfortunately, is the only Google experience you can get and honestly I gave it an 8 initially, a 6-7 after a few months of use, and a 9 now that I have a prerelease Jellybean. The software evolution and polish has been HUGE.

The problem with Nexus is that often you have to pay more for it (varies based on carrier/year/etc), and it is often carrier-limited entirely (unless you want to buy one that is already old). It gets better support than any other Android phone, but Google rarely supports them with updates more than a year after they stop selling them (has a Nexus phone EVER gotten an update more than a year after they were last sold?). That's better than most of the other vendors who stop supporting their phones before they even stop selling them. However, if you replace an iPhone every two years chances are you'll never miss an OS update (though Apple of late has been spoiling that a bit by not releasing all the features to all the phones).

My desires are simple. I want stock Android without garbage on top. I want root on request without cracking the thing. I want updates for two years after the last one is sold (not two years after it is announced, or first sold - not that I've seen an Android phone do even this).

Sooner or later somebody is going to start writing exploits against old versions of android designed to flatten mobile networks (virus propagates phone to phone and then turns the radio into a jammer). Maybe then the carriers will wake up and decide to start deploying updates...

No

[Old Wolf]

It just signals that open source stuff beats proprietary crap

Re:Not surprising

[Tridus]

Yeah, I really meant to say "excluding Apple". :) They've got the sales & profit thing figured out.

But RIM and Nokia fanboys like to talk about how they have the greatest platform ever and how Android sucks. Meanwhile both companies are hurtling towards irrelevence with plummeting sales. Obviously the market likes Android more then their miracle platforms, and that's the measure that really matters.